Talk:Live preview

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'conventionally-generated live-preview digital camera (CGLPD)' Wow. That sure seems like a convoluted, made up term to try and differentiate Live View on a P&S camera and Live View on the new generation of dSLRs. In all the photography sites and forums I have ever been on and in all the photography books and magazines I have ever read, I have never, not once, heard that description. I would not be surprised if the only place it appears is on Wikipedia and sites that get their information from Wikipedia. Is this site in the business of creating terms and words just so an article can be written? Just a thought. --70.225.67.181 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Yes! It should be deleted in whole. How does that occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.16.115 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to above: The following is from the very first creation of this page -

The name "Live-Preview Digital camera" (and its acronym LPD) is specific and simple but is just a suggested one here in the hope that it will fill the gap (or that better alternative will replace it here).

- and that confirms that this is a term and category that was made up especially for Wikipedia. I have redirected this page to Live-preview and am describing that generic feature there. --Stujoe (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unwound that change. I don't think we have a consensus here yet. Furthermore, your new article's title is an adjective, instead of the noun "live preview", which is then hard to fix. It would be more correct to morph the contents of this article into something better and more correct, and then move it to a new title. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What kind of consensus do you need when the person who created the term and the page admits on the page he created that he suggested the term to fill a gap until something better comes along? You can go ahead and keep your new term, though. I am not going to fight an edit war over something so obviously made up and I will revert my edits related to this neologism. --Stujoe (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the name he made up is not the best name for the page; that can be dealt with by a move, and the contents can be adjusted accordingly. Wholesale deletion of content and recreation of the topic elsewhere with new contents is just not how it's done. No need to take offense, nor call it an edit war; I just back out your improper changes so that we can do it correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've started the process to move it to Live preview. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire article is based upon the premise that there is a class of cameras called 'Live-preview digital cameras'. There isn't. It shouldn't be moved. It should be deleted. The feature Live-preview (or Live Preview depending upon the source) should be described on a page named as such. But I am not going to worry about it. I have attempted to revert all my edits in other pages that pertained to this false category and restore the original incorrect stuff. If you find any I missed, feel free to revert them too. I am bowing out of the discussion. TTFN --Stujoe (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case you should have nominated it for deletion; you can't just toss out an article and make it a redirect without following standard procedure. Seems extreme though, as some of the content might usefully be saved. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Live-preview digital camera → Live preview — Live preview is a feature; make that the topic, instead of making it a camera category —Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. More logical than the current setup. Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support – and that seems to be what others were happy with (except that the improper move used the hyphenated adjective form), but I undid the improper move and the next title was already "used", so now I have to appeal to the admins to do a proper move. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Moving this article will not make it any less of a made up category of cameras. In addition, moving this article to 'Live preview' will make it harder to have a valid article on the actual Live preview feature found in cameras. --Stujoe (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd live to try again to contribute, rather than continuing to take back all your contributions to make a WP:POINT, please take a look at the cleanup I've started, and tell us what you think. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I will pass on the editing. But, at a quick look at the article, it does appear to have less incorrect information in it now. Still some leftover spurious junk, but I am sure you will work that out over time. --Stujoe (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So are you retracting your oppostion to a move? Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. There is still some wording that makes it sound like a class of cameras but at least it is better than it was. --Stujoe (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well of source there is such a camera class; the class of cameras with a given feature need not be dignified with a name, but it still exists as a class. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So, are you going to want articles on Manual White Balance digital cameras and Spot Metering digital cameras and Depth of Field Preview digital cameras and Spot Metering without DOF Preview digital cameras and on and on? I guess I just don't see every feature defining a class of cameras. It seems to make clasification useless. --Stujoe (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone suggest such a thing? What's your point? Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you say, dude. Go about your little article. I will leave you to it in peace and you can have your 'consensus'. Discussing the flaws is just not worth the effort. Adios. --Stujoe (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

{{subst:pollbottom}{